Palestine: What’s in a Name?

 

Thought that ‘tis the season to send this out before some other half-baked cleric restarts the “Christ was a Palestinian” nonsense.

 

Palestine: What’s in a Name?

Mike Walker, Col USMC (ret)

 

One thing you see a lot of by the current generation of left-leaning and often hard-left history professors is the word “Palestine.” The reasons are many but almost always based on leftist ideologies and causes.

 

Which is why these historians are loath to use the words Canaan or Judah or Judea or Israel or – God forbid – the Holy Land during the Crusader Era. And they never ever use the ancient name Zion. Instead, the word Palestine (and ideally only Palestine) is inserted as often as possible.

 

Why?

 

Sadly, they aim to trick their audience into believing there was and always has been a land called Palestine. Further, their current goal is to delegitimize the state of Israel by supplanting its history with a misleading and often false narrative.

 

Here is the truth: the word “Palestine” is a European invention for the region that began with Alexander the Great’s conquests, then adopted under the Romans, and lastly when the British took over at the end of World War I. Beyond those European periods of conquest, going back over 3,000 years, the region was never called Palestine.

 

Significantly, during Islamic rule, the Greco-Roman word “Palestine” (in any of its forms) never was used.

 

And unsurprisingly, the longest and most enduring titles of the Jewish homeland were Hebrew or Hebrew adaptations centered on the names Zion, Israel and Judea.

 

So how about some history?

 

Perhaps the earliest form of the word Palestine begins some 3,000 years ago in ancient Egypt, around 1150 BCE, with P-R-S-T or Peleset used to describe what we call Philistines. And the Assyrians also made reference the Pilitsti or Palatsu.

 

The first Philistines were a Greco-Aegean people who settled Philistia along a coastal strip centered on modern Gaza City (and possibly related to the late-Bronze Age Sea Peoples). The city states stretched roughly 60 km along the Mediterranean and were about 15 km in width totaling roughly 900 km² in area.

 

The Philistines never ruled the region, only that enclave and for reference, modern Israel is about 21,000 km² in size or over 20 times larger than ancient Philistia.

 

That was a long time ago but not quite as old as the Egyptian root word for Israel (Khabiri) dating to 1209 BCE (although some claim the Egyptians referred to Israel a few decades earlier during the reign of Rameses II). The Assyrians called them Hibaru (Hebrews) and later, in the 9^th century BCE, the Bit Omri (after the name of the sixth Jewish ruler of Israel, King Omri).

 

Either way, the Jewish people resided in much of what is present-day Israel and for much of this era the region often was divided into two kingdoms: Israel (and sometimes Samaria) in the north and Judah in the south.

 

These two peoples, the Philistines and Israelites, cohabited the region and were fierce rivals (think David versus Goliath about a decade or two before 1,000 BCE). By the way, David ruled the united kingdom of Israel and Judea (accomplished by his predecessor, King Saul).

 

Several centuries later, in the 7^th century BCE, the Babylonians crushed both the Jews and Philistines. They renamed the region Yehud, a Hebrew word for Jews.

 

The Philistines never recovered and their lands came under the control of Egypt (which would be conquered by Persia in the next century). But they were not entirely forgotten, in the 5^th century BCE, the Greek historian Herodotus recalled them as what he called the Palaistine and Europeans thereafter associated the region with that name.

 

The Jews faced a happier fate. They were able to return after six decades of captivity in Assyria.

 

This is where Zionism comes from: The effort to reestablish their homeland by Jews who were forcibly expelled. It was the Persians who made the return to Zion possible and the Jewish lands willingly became the Persian province of Yehud Medinata (Mount Zion was the landmark hill of ancient Jerusalem).

 

Internally, the north became Samaria (peopled by Jews but also a small Jewish sect, the Samaritans, who limited the sacred texts to the Torah or Pentateuch) and the south again became Judea. Divisions again ran deep as the Samaritans were deemed sinful outcasts by Judea (hence the shock of finding a “good” Samaritan in the Bible).

 

Judea came to dominate the region and this ushered in the Second Temple era which lasted for a bit over 200 years until a youthful Greek King of Macedonia named Alexander came calling with his massive army in tow. The Persians fought back but it was a losing proposition. Alexander took control in 332 BCE (to include Egypt, where a new city was built: Alexandria).

 

The Greeks, under the dynastic rule of the Ptolemy family (founded by one of Alexander’s ablest generals) ruled the entire region – to include the Jewish states – from their capital of Alexandria for the next 130 years or so.

 

Ptolemy gave the Jewish homeland the old Greek name of Palaistine and it became the front line in the wars against the resurgent Persian Seleucid Empire (ruled by another Greek dynasty founded by another of Alexander’s generals, Seleucus).

 

In 201 BCE, the Seleucids captured Palaistine and it again became Judea. The Seleucids at first ruled with a light hand but the brutal rein of Antiochus IV beginning in 170 BCE led to armed rebellion in Judea (led by the Maccabees). The Jewish people prevailed with independence regained in 167 BCE.

 

The Jewish world at this time was not limited to Israel-Judea. To the south, Jewish Edom (Greek Idoumaia, Roman Idumea) was ruled by the Herod family whose members intermarried with the ruling families of Judea. There also were sizeable Jewish communities in major ports of the eastern Mediterranean and tens of thousands of Jews lived in Alexandria.

 

But it did not stop there. There were Jewish communities all along Arabian coast of the Red Sea as far south as present-day Yemen and even along the African Red Sea coast. But all the regional states, to include the Jews, were about to face their strongest foe, the Romans.

 

The Romans dramatically arrived in the last century before Christ under the leadership of Julius Caesar. Perhaps his most famous exploit dealt with Egypt where he brought the Ptolemaic ruler, the famed Cleopatra, into the Roman fold.

 

(As another aside, Cleopatra is not an Egyptian word. It is Greek, a name often used by women from the Macedonian aristocracy).

 

The Romans then advanced further east and in 63 BCE King Herod the Great in Jerusalem (and kin of the Herods of Edom) agreed to vassalage under Rome. That sustained the continued if conditional independence of Judea.

 

After Caesar’s assassination in 44 BCE, Rome was plunged into a civil war and Cleopatra backed Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony). It was the wrong side and both were dead by 30 BCE.

 

Which leads us to Christmas.

 

At the time of Christ's birth, Judea was ruled by Herod Archelaus, a Jew and son of King Herod the Great.

 

Thus Christ was born a Jew in the Jewish Kingdom of Judea which remained a Roman vassal, only now under Emperor Caesar Augustus.

 

Herod Archelaus, however, proved a poor leader and in 6 BCE, when Christ was a child, Augustus dethroned him and made Judea a province of Rome.

 

Things went along somewhat smoothly until the reign of Emperor Nero, a particularly nasty despot (even accounting for modern revisionist arguments that make him slightly less profligate).

 

Predictably, Nero’s governor in Judea managed to so alienate the Jewish population with his excesses that in 65 CE they rose up in rebellion – a rebellion that did not end until 74 CE.

 

It was a costly war for Rome. Judea had been calm and there was no sizeable Roman garrison. To right things, the XII Legion in Syria was ordered to Judea. Unfortunately for Rome, it was crush and its few survivors disgraced after its imperial eagle (or aquila) was captured.

 

Nero then ordered the X and XV Legions under General Vespasian (who had distinguished himself during the conquest of Britain) to suppress the uprising. Vespasian arrived in 66 CE and met with great success in Galilee, so much that in 69 CE, Vespasian became emperor following Nero’s suicide. He then sent General Titus (also a future emperor) to Judea and doubled his army by adding the V and VII Legions.

 

In 70 CE, Titus razed much of Jerusalem, destroyed the Second Temple Mount, and ended the war in 73-74 CE with the siege of the mountain fortress at Masada by the X Legion. The Jewish garrison ultimately committed suicide rather than face certain defeat and capture. (In commemoration, Masada is where today’s Israeli military officers take their commissioning oaths).

 

As under the Greeks, there were large Jewish communities living in most of the Roman Empire’s southeastern Mediterranean provinces as well as Rome itself and the number of Jews displaced by the war in Judea only increased these regional populations.

 

That growing diaspora led to the next great Jewish uprising against Roman colonial oppression in 115 CE. The underlying causes were several. One was remaining unrest over Roman rule in general but the most import was timing, the Roman empire had committed its army in 113 CE in yet another of its wars with the Parthians (Persians), this one over control of Armenia.

 

As Trajan and his army began a long march on the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon (just south of modern Baghdad, Iraq), minor uprisings against the Romans in Cyrenaica (eastern Libya and home of Simon of Cyrene of the New Testament).

 

That spread to Egypt, Cyprus, and to Roman Mesopotamia. Almost everywhere diaspora Jews joined and often led the resistance and soon Judea became the heart of the uprising. Trajan called upon General Lusius Queitus to restore order and that gave the war its common name, the Kitos War.

 

Quetius was a Berber Roman officer who had fought well in Dacia (modern Romania), against the Parthians (Persians), and then crushed a pro-Parthian uprising in Babylon. So when the Jewish revolt arose, Trajan made him legate of Judea and ordered him to crush that rebellion.

 

After it was suppressed, Rome finally felt obliged to garrison Judea, stationing the VI Legion there on a permanent basis.

 

But peace did not last. By the 130s CE, Hadrian, who was born Publius Aelius Hadrianus, became emperor. Hadrian was strong, competent, and cautious emperor who defended the empire forcefully. Hadrian also was a noted builder of public works, and after visiting Judea in 130, he promised to rebuild Jerusalem to include the Second Temple.

 

But his actions more enraged than endeared. Hadrian did have Jerusalem, the capital of the Judea, rebuilt but renamed it after himself, Aelia Capitolina, and then began work to erect a statue of Jupiter on the ruins of the Temple Mount. To show Roman power, a second legion, the X, was sent to garrison Aelia Capitolina.

 

These insults and desecrations led to the 3^rd Jewish-Roman War that began in 132. At the very onset of the uprising both legions took to the field and marched against the Jewish rebels but were stymied by strong resistance and suffered heavy casualties. Soon large parts of the Judean and Idumean regions were in rebel hands where they established a government and even issued currency stamped with the Temple Mount on one side of the coins and the slogan “Free Jerusalem” on the reverse.

 

Hadrian did not hesitate to respond and soon 4 more legions under Sextus Julius Severus made ready to battle in Judea with more alerted. Despite the early successes, the power of Rome inexorably ground down the Jewish resistance. By 136, after four years of war, Rome emerged victorious.

 

Hadrian, understandably, sought to ensure this third war with the Jews would be the last and took extreme measures. The name Judea (which dated backed many centuries) was erased, the province given a Romanized version of the old Greek name, Palaestina. In Jerusalem, Jews were expelled and banned from even reentering the city. The survivors who fought against Rome were enslaved and the rebellious communities ethnically cleansed and exiled to Galilee.

 

Their homes, farms, and pasture lands were forfeited and new settler-colonists were brought into the Jewish lands. They primarily were loyal ethnic Greeks (who populated much of the eastern Mediterranean coastal world of that age) and they came to be called Palestinians.

 

Whatever else it produced, it brought Pax Romana to the region. Then the Roman Empire divided late in the 3^rd century and became Christian very early in the 4^th century. Palaestina, which had a Christian population since the time of Christ in the 1^st century, also became predominantly Christian and remained part of the Roman Empire. After Rome fell in 476 CE, only the Eastern Roman Empire remained to include the Christian-dominated Palaestina and so things stood for the next century and a half.

 

And again as noted above, they too would lose their almost all their lands following the Moslem Conquest in the 630s. That was when another onslaught of settler-colonists took control of everything: the Arabs. (Although many Jews and descendants of the original Christian Palestinians remain in the Holy Land to this day).

 

The land was again divided in two and formed into military districts (junds): Jund al Urdunn in the north and Jund Filastin in the south, a clear reference to the Philistines. That is how things stood until the Abbasid Caliphate redistricted and incorporated the entire region into Bilad al Sham around 750 AD.

 

And that is where today’s ISIS and HTS gets part of their names: The Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

 

In 970, the Fatimid Shite Muslims ruling from Cairo conquered Jerusalem and wrested control of the area away from the Abbasid. The tumult continued.

 

By the 11^th century the Seljuk (Seljuq) Turks from south central Asia were displacing both the Abbasid and Fatimids (whom they deemed apostates) and the region was roiled anew with their capture of Jerusalem in 1071. They called the region Safad and al Karak but had just begun to establish their rule when the Europeans reentered the arena.

 

Just 25 years later, in 1096, the First Crusade began. The causes were many but the region's chaotic state was key as Christian Holy Land pilgrims had become targets of both organized raiders and thieves as well as violent Islamic fanatics. That led to Pope Urban II’s call for knights to defend the pilgrims and secure Christianity’s most sacred sites.

 

It was smashing success for the Christians. Jerusalem fell in 1099 and soon the entire region was under their control through various Crusader or Outremer (Far Sea) States ranging from modern-day southeastern Turkey down to coastal Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Gaza. From north to south they were County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

 

Opposing them were the Fatimids from the south, the Emirate of Damascus from the east and the Seljuk Empire from the north and northeast. It ushered in two centuries of conflict.

 

Then came the Mongols in 1258. When they were through, the great political, economic, academic, and cultural center of Baghdad virtually was erased. Never again would that corner of the world host the capital of one of the world’s great powers.

 

But the Mongols were not invincible. Islam always embraced slavery on a massive scale and that extended to the military in the form of slave-soldiers. These solders, who came primarily from Transoxiana in central Asia, were called Mamluk (meaning “one who is owned”).

 

Realizing their latent power, the Mamluk knights rose up, seized power in Egypt, and in 1250 established a Sultanate that expanded into the Holy Land to face the Crusaders.

 

In 1260, they took on and beat the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut in Galilee thus preserving their sultanate. In 1291, the Mamluks expelled the last of the Crusaders at Acre. But a lesson had been learned. Going forward, the Muslim Mamluks safeguarded Christians, their holy sites, and Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land. There were no new crusades.

 

The Mamluk Sultanate retained the provincial organization of the Seljuks, maintaining Safad in the north and al-Karak in the south. They would remain in command of the area until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks in the 16^th century.

 

So impressive was the legacy of the Mamluk warriors that to this day, United States Marine Corps officers carry Mamluk swords during formal dress ceremonies.

 

In 1517, the Ottomans took power and the region became the Eyalet of Damascus (the Ottomans named provinces for the capital city). The eyalet was divided into a number of sanjaks (districts) also name for governing cities and the Holy Land was divided between the Sanjaks of Beirut and Jerusalem.

 

In 19^th century Europe and the associated empires, classical Greece and Rome were deeply revered by the educated ruling class and that led to a revival of the words Palaistine and Palaestina respectively for the Holy Land which were anglicized by English-speaking people into Palestine. 

 

This also led to great increase in Christian pilgrims which in turn raised the interest of European Christian religious leaders along with their monarchs. In reaction to the heightened political concerns, in 1841, the Sanjak of Jerusalem was separated from Damascus, reestablished as the Marasarrifate of Jerusalem, and ruled directly from the Porte. In 1871, it became a separate Eyalet.

 

Then came the First World War which the Ottoman Empire entered after naval battling with the Russians in October. In January 1915, two Ottoman armies invaded the Sinai threatening the Suez Canal. The British reacted strongly.

 

Soon, an Allied army dominated by British Commonwealth forces counterattacked. That first led to failed fighting in Gallipoli and more successful British support for the Arab Uprising against the Ottomans (made famous by the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia). The fighting shifted to Egypt and in January 1917, the Allies recaptured the Sinai and the fighting spread to the Holy Land. On 11 December, the Allies marched victoriously into Jerusalem.

 

Reflecting the significance of the event, British Prime Minister Lloyd George described it as a Christmas present to the British people.

 

Throughout this period the British referred to the region as Palestine. After victory in the world war, the peace negotiations at Versailles awarded those Ottoman lands to the British Empire which called it Palestine.

 

After three millennia of history, in the early 20^th century and for the first time, the name Palestine became the universal word for the region.

Protecting Church from State

Protecting Church from State

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, American Mind 

An Ohio pastor is seeing firsthand how government can violate the free expression of religion.

Bryan, Ohio, is a fine small town. It’s the kind of place where holiday dinners are potlucks, featuring several versions of homemade meatloaf and bean casserole, and the cooks silently watch to see which desserts are gone first. It’s as flat as a sheet of plywood, and the wind bites bare skin in the winter.

Dad’s Place, a storefront church run by Pastor Chris, occupies an old building a few doors down from the county courthouse. It looks like plenty of other businesses that haven’t yet spruced up their early-20th century buildings. Mentally ill and homeless people shelter in the church, which is open 24/7—but the day of my visit, the local City Hall got a court order to shut it down. The temperature dipped to 16 degrees that night.

Pastor Chris founded Dad’s Place years after his conversion to Christianity in mid-adulthood, after which he entered ministry. He describes his reluctant conversion this way: “It was like a nuclear bomb went off. I can’t describe it—nothing around me happened, I didn’t hear a voice or anything like that.” His eyes welled up at the memory. “But everything changed in that moment.”

Inside of Dad’s Place, there’s a front room that faces the street, with just a table and some chairs. Anyone can walk in off the street. There’s always a live or recorded sermon playing for customers.

In the back is a large industrial-looking room with concrete floors where the church meets. Church members volunteer to care of the people who come in—some mentally ill, some homeless and hungry, some addicted. Some walk in, some are brought there by police. There are no beds or cots, but more than one person has fallen asleep sitting in a warm room listening to a sermon—which is not so different from the churches where the well-washed pay their Sunday obeisance.

But Bryan’s mayor does not like Dad’s Place and has mounted a year-and-a-half battle to close it down. The police stopped bringing people. Instead, City Hall sent fire inspectors, zoning inspectors, building code inspectors—all the petty tools it has to express its displeasure with unfavored members of the community.

Pastor Chris and Dad’s Place have been ably defended by First Liberty and two private law firms, Taft Law Firm from Cincinnati and Spengler Nathanson from Toledo, on a pro bono basis (the Latin phrase does not mean “free”—though the client doesn’t get charged; it means “for good”).

This is a battle over the First Amendment and freedom of religion. Pastor Chris keeps his church open to anybody, all the time, because he believes the words of Jesus as recorded in the 25th Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel: “What you do for the least of these, you do it for me.”

Pastor Chris was in court the first week of December to be tried for a criminal violation of the fire code. He could go to jail. His lawyers believe he is the first person ever to be criminally tried for a fire code violation in Bryan—such things are almost universally handled by a citation, or a civil lawsuit.

The trial produced testimony that the city waives code requirements for older buildings when it is economically burdensome to a business. But it won’t waive it for a church that is trying to live out its faith among the most marginalized people in the community.

At the end of the trial, the judge asked for a briefing on the First Amendment defense raised by Pastor Chris, and deferred ruling from the bench.

I visited Dad’s Place later the week Pastor Chris was on trial. After listening to his story and asking some questions, we moved to the back room where I met the members of his church who help him keep the place open around the clock, and some of the people who find a safe place in the church.

I met a woman sitting at one of the tables with a stack of papers. She flinched ever so slightly when we shook hands, as though human touch had been harmful to her at some point in the past. When I asked about her paperwork, she told me she was looking for a job.

We chatted for a few minutes. Some of her words were out of order or jumbled, but she made herself understood. When I got up from the table, Pastor Chris took me aside and told me that the woman had been coming for about two months. “When she came here, she was non-verbal,” he told me quietly. “She couldn’t even have a conversation.”

I notice a young woman seated behind a computer. She spoke at first in very short phrases and told me that she did graphic design. I asked her if I could see any of her work. She pulled out her phone, swiped several times through various pieces, and then displayed a picture that looked like a photograph of a masterpiece oil painting. I asked her how she had made the image. She began speaking in complete sentences, explaining the software she had used to create it, and that it had taken her two months. It was fabulous.

Having a schedule to keep, I took a photo with Pastor Chris and his family and moved on. That evening, at a Christmas party several counties away, I was told that a different judge in a civil case against Dad’s Place had issued an order that would effectively close it immediately.

There were multiple problems with that order. There was no immediate harm happening that had not been happening for months during the entire pendency of the case. The order did not preserve the status quo during the proceedings, but rather upended it.

One judge, having heard the case and the arguments over religious liberty, had slowed everything down, wanting to get it right. But another judge swung into action and rushed in.

I asked Elliot Gaiser, Ohio’s Solicitor General, to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the trial court in support of Dad’s Place, asking the court to stay its order. The trial court responded by setting a hearing in ten days. There will be further appeals, and Ohio will defend the state and federal guarantees of freedom of religion.

Pastor Chris stayed up all night, preaching to his small congregation, doing “church stuff,” and keeping people off the streets for one more night. But the government should not get a say in what is “church stuff”; it doesn’t get to decide that preaching is OK, but sheltering the homeless is not. And it doesn’t get to grant waivers to secular businesses but single a church out for strict enforcement.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about a “wall of separation between Church and State” to describe the operation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses. The phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration—but if it means anything, it means that the Church is behind a protective wall that the State may not climb over or go around.

 

FBI spied on likely new director, Kash Patel

 

Report reveals that FBI spied on its likely new director, Kash Patel

Paul Sperry, New York Post 

It’s going to be awkward at FBI headquarters next month when President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the bureau likely takes over. 

According to a new government watchdog report, the FBI spied on its prospective new boss, Kash Patel.

Patel has promised to “clean house” at the Hoover Building, and hold all those who “abused their power” during the Russiagate “witch hunt” accountable.

He might start with the officials and agents who secretly vacuumed up his phone records and emails starting in late 2017, when he led a House Intelligence Committee investigation into the FBI’s reliance on Hillary Clinton’s false opposition research to surveil a Trump campaign official as a supposed “Russian agent.”

According to a nearly 100-page report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, the FBI subpoenaed the records as part of an investigation it opened to find out whether congressional staffers leaked classified information about its Trump-Russia “collusion” case to the Washington Post and other media. 

Working with career prosecutors at Justice, the FBI compelled Google and Apple to turn over the sensitive private information of subjects the FBI identified “between September 2017 and March 2018,” a period when Andrew McCabe was the acting FBI director. (Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was out of the loop, the report said, having recused himself from the Russia probe.)

The court orders gagged the service providers from notifying Patel and other customers of the intrusion.

As chief counsel, Patel had no idea that the subject of his investigation — the FBI — was collecting his data and increasing the visibility of witnesses he was communicating with, including whistleblowers.

At the time, Patel was demanding to see FBI documents and depose FBI witnesses to find out if the bureau had abused its power in obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Trump aide Carter Page.

But Patel remained in the dark until 2022, when Google finally was cleared to send him a copy of the subpoena. Outraged, he told me at the time: “The FBI and DOJ subpoenaed my personal records while I caught them doing this to Page back in 2017.”

He said the McCabe FBI didn’t want anybody to find out that it “literally copied and pasted” Democrat opposition research, wholesale, into wiretap-warrant applications.

He added that he hoped those behind the abuses would be prosecuted by a future Trump administration: “They must be held accountable or they’ll only abuse their power again.”

The IG probe reveals that the FBI had renewed the subpoenas each year, snooping on congressional staffers for up to five years. That means McCabe’s successor, Christopher Wray, signed off on the continued collections.

Justice Department IG Michael Horowitz found the unprecedented surveillance created “at a minimum, the appearance of inappropriate interference” by the FBI in “legitimate oversight activity” by Congress. He warned that it could have a “chilling” effect on whistleblowers coming forward.

On Wednesday, the day after the IG report came out, Wray announced he would step down at the end of President Biden’s term, clearing the way for Trump nominee Patel to head the agency.

“This [IG] report highlights exactly why Kash Patel is the perfect leader to reform and rebuild the FBI,” a spokeswoman for Patel told The Post. “Kash understands the critical balance between national security and protecting civil rights [and] will work hand-in-hand with Congress to restore trust.”

A former ally of Patel on the Hill, who was also spied on by the FBI, called the leak investigation a “fishing expedition”: Former Senate investigator Jason Foster claims McCabe used it as a “pretext” to find out what he and Patel were doing to expose FBI corruption in its Russiagate probe of Trump.

At the time, his Senate panel, the Judiciary Committee, had forced the FBI to turn over the shady Page FISA applications. Foster noted that the inspector general determined that no one was ever charged in the FBI’s years-long investigation of the unauthorized disclosures to the media, despite the wide net McCabe cast.

Foster also noted that McCabe himself was investigated for leaking to the media about an earlier Clinton-related investigation, and then lying about it to the IG, as well as FBI inspectors.

“Mr. McCabe lied about his own leaking and should have been prosecuted for it, according to the Obama-appointed Justice IG [Horowitz], but wasn’t,” he told The Post. “Now that this fishing expedition into the communications of congressional attorneys has been confirmed by the same IG, the new administration needs to finally hold people accountable.”

Currently chairing a whistleblower support group, Empower Oversight, Foster said that what the McCabe FBI did is more egregious than reported. It also swept up the phone records of spouses, including his own wife.

He said, “My head was spinning” when he found out. And he said agents and prosecutors withheld from the DC magistrate judge who approved the subpoenas and non-disclosure orders the fact that the targets were congressional attorneys.

“They misled the court,” he said. “They left out the key fact we were all congressional attorneys. They claimed over and over, with no basis, that we were flight risks or would ‘destroy evidence.’ “

IG Horowitz agreed that the language agents and prosecutors used in the subpoenas was “boilerplate,” making it more likely the judges would rubberstamp them.

As a result, “they got all kinds of information on who we were talking to, and when, with no probable cause and no notice to congressional leadership, so there was no chance for Congress to challenge it,” Foster added. 

“And they can still get that kind of information,” barring reforms to protect separation of powers in the future.

Horowitz confirmed the personal data collected from the subpoenas (including more than 75,000 text messages), along with the electronic communications documenting the opening of the investigations and the FBI interview reports, are stored at FBI headquarters.

He noted he only reviewed “a select number” of the thousands of files, which leaves loose ends for Patel to investigate.

A handful of agents and supervisors involved in the case are still employed there, the IG said, and maintain access to the files.

Bad actors remaining at the bureau could be fired, but how can those who have left be held accountable? The five-year federal statute of limitations has expired, making prosecution of suspected criminal abuses by current and former FBI officials and agents a non-starter. 

Foster suggested they still could lose their coveted national security clearance. As FBI director, Patel would have the authority to strip McCabe and other former officials of their classified credentials, making it virtually impossible for them to work again in federal law enforcement. Patel said in a recent podcast that any official involved in framing Trump as part of the “Russiagate hoax” should have his clearance revoked.

On CNN, where he works as an analyst, McCabe recently opined that Patel wasn’t qualified to lead the FBI: “He doesn’t really have a fraction of the qualifications that any former FBI director chosen by any president has.” 

McCabe says he worries Patel will turn the bureau back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when it was “essentially the enforcement arm for the president’s political activities.”

He fears Patel will trample over civil liberties? That’s rich, Patel points out, as it was “gangster” McCabe who signed one of the illegal FISA warrants to spy on Page.

Paul Sperry is a senior reporter for ­RealClearInvestigations. Follow him on X: @paulsperry_ 

Daniel Penny Found Not Guilty

Daniel Penny Found Not Guilty

in Subway Death of Jordan Neely

The verdict brings an end to a controversial case that drew national and international attention.

Michael Washburn, Epoch Times 

NEW YORK CITY—A Manhattan jury on Dec. 9 acquitted Daniel Penny of criminally negligent homicide over the death of Jordan Neely, a mentally ill homeless man whom Penny put in a chokehold and wrestled to the ground on a subway in May of last year.

On Friday, Judge Maxwell Wiley had agreed to dismiss the top charge of manslaughter in the second degree when the jury could not reach a unanimous decision after three days of deliberation.

The verdict brings a conclusion to a closely watched trial that took a little over one month, from voir dire and the seating of a jury at the end of October to witness testimony throughout November up to this week’s closing statements and jury deliberations.

Witnesses were unanimous that Neely got onto an uptown F train at Manhattan’s Second Avenue station and immediately began screaming that he was hungry, homeless, and did not care if he went back to prison.

Their testimony differed slightly as to the explicitness of Neely’s threats. Some said he had cried out that he was willing to hurt others if they did not give him what he sought.

Lori Sitro, who had her small son with her on the train when Neely got on at Second Avenue, said Neely’s conduct made her fear for the boy’s safety so much that she placed his stroller in front of the boy to shield him from Neely.

The boy was too small to move quickly off the train with her, Sitro said, who expressed gratitude toward Penny for taking swift action to protect passengers.

Sitro’s testimony was consistent with that of others present, such as Yvette Rosario, who said Neely’s conduct scared her so badly she thought she might pass out, and she placed her head on a friend’s chest.

Dan Couvreur said the incident went far beyond other tense moments he had experienced on the subway.

Another witness, Alethea Gittings, called Neely’s words “very loud, very menacing, very disturbing,” and thanked Penny for stepping in to protect her and others on the train.

The lead prosecutor, Dafna Yoran, noted in her closing statements to the jury on Dec. 3 that some of the jurors might now feel grateful to Penny for springing into action to protect passengers and that weighing his potential guilt or innocence would not be easy.

Yoran said that it might be hard to convict a man who had tried to do the right thing and did not act with the intent to take someone’s life.

The defense argued that in light of the testimony of those present on the F train, Penny had acted bravely and selflessly and the government was trying to make a scapegoat of a good man.

The prosecution and defense differed sharply as to the causes of Neely’s death, the appropriateness of using deadly physical force to protect passengers on the train from Neely, and the validity of defense claims that Penny’s actions were justified under New York law.

A Parade of Witnesses

Over the trial, the jury heard from an array of witnesses including people who were present on the F train and saw Penny and Neely struggle, former Marine comrades of Penny’s, a friend of the defendant, his mother, and two medical experts who contradicted each other’s accounts of how Neely had died.

Prosecutors brought to the stand Dr. Cynthia Harris, a New York City medical examiner who performed Neely’s autopsy.

Harris said she had found synthetic cannabinoids in Neely’s body that were more potent than marijuana and were, in fact, on par with cocaine in terms of their ability to make someone aggressive.

She said the vascular compromise and airway compromise that Penny’s chokehold inflicted were the causes of Neely’s death. These resulted in “a low-oxygen state for the brain to be at,” a condition “sufficient to cause death,” Harris testified under oath on Nov. 15.

The defense sought to counter those claims and raise reasonable doubts about the prosecution’s theory by putting on the stand Satish Chundru, a certified forensic pathologist.

Under direct examination from defense lawyer Steve Raiser, Chundru said that a number of factors, acting in concert, had brought about the death of Jordan Neely.

Chundru said Harris should have considered the role of other factors, such as the drugs in his system, his schizophrenia, and a sickle cell trait that became a crisis under the stress of the chokehold.

He said that red blood cells in the body of someone with this trait change shape under stress. Instead of their usual round form, they take on what Chundru described as a “crescent moon or banana shape,” and no longer carry out their critical life-supporting function of conveying oxygen to tissue cells.

During the chokehold, Neely suffered a sickle cell crisis, and died as a direct consequence of it, Chundru stated.

He argued that blaming the death solely on the chokehold ignored the extent of Neely’s sickle cell condition and its propensity to have fatal complications during an incident that would not be deadly for the average person.

Differing Theories

The prosecution and defense clashed repeatedly over what cell phone footage taken at the scene of the incident did or did not capture.

Lawyers for both sides continually played this footage on screens in the courtroom and shared conflicting theories as to when Neely lost consciousness and the meaning of nonverbal evidence such as the position of his tongue and motions of his legs while he lay prone in Penny’s chokehold.

Yoran sought to impeach testimony from Chundru that made Neely out to be conscious and still struggling at a point in a video when she argued Penny had made him lose consciousness.

Yet another aspect of the case had to do with Penny’s character.

While Wiley, the judge, leaned in favor of prosecution arguments that character witness testimony was immaterial in a case of this kind, the judge briefly allowed Penny’s lawyers to put people on the stand who had served with Penny in the Marines.

These witnesses attested to his character as a decent, responsible person who followed rules, got along well with others, and, at least in their personal experience, was never the subject of complaints or negative comments.

Yoran used the testimony of Joseph Caballer, who had taught Penny combat techniques during their time together in the Marines, to try to strengthen her case that Penny’s actions went beyond what his training authorized or condoned.

The chokehold that Penny applied to Neely, she repeatedly asserted, was proper neither from the point of view of Penny’s and Neely’s bodily positioning nor the amount of time that Penny kept Neely in the hold.

According to Yoran, Penny should have quickly released Neely as soon as Neely lost consciousness and was no longer capable of harming anyone, but instead kept Neely in the hold for about six minutes, causing an asphyxial death.

A discontented ghost, Barack Obama

 

Alexander Hamilton Tried to Warn Us About Barack Obama

A discontented ghost, wandering among the people, pining for relevance

Andrew Stiles,Free Beacon 

Barack Obama, the serial memoirist and Netflix producer who owns a $20 million estate on Martha's Vineyard and also served as the 44th president of the United States, has yet to embrace his irrelevance in the field of American politics. He keeps trying to reinsert himself into the national conversation despite the fact that no one cares what he has to say. Earlier this week, Obama interviewed talked about himself while sitting next to former German chancellor Angela Merkel. On Thursday, the former president gave a (ridiculously long and vapid) speech at the Obama Foundation's Democracy Forum in Chicago, where he denounced "our current polarized environment," which he helped create, and stressed the importance of building coalitions that make room "not only for the woke but also for the waking." Whatever that means.

"We have to be open to other people’s experiences and believe that, by listening to these people and building relationships and understanding what their fears are, we might actually bring some of them, not all of them, but some of them along with us," Obama told the crowd of adoring fans. He made similar remarks during his appearance with Merkel in Washington, D.C., where he urged a different crowd of adoring fans to "listen actively and be curious about and learn from the experiences of those who are not exactly like you." Obama routinely complains about "cynicism" and "division" in politics, yet his most memorable contribution to this year's election was lecturing black "brothas" who were reluctant to vote for Kamala Harris and denouncing them as misogynists. He backed Hillary Clinton in 2016, and was "enamored" with Beto O'Rourke in 2020. Nevertheless, he continues to regard himself as a political genius.

Free Beacon reader Barry J. from Arizona reached out to remind us of Alexander Hamilton's opposition to presidential term limits, as outlined in Federalist No. 72, which reads at times like a specific warning about Barack Obama. Hamilton imagined future presidents who might be "vain and ambitious, as well as avaricious," who, upon reaching the end of their allotted time in the "seat of supreme magistracy," would be forced to assuage their considerable ego by "wandering among the people like discontented ghosts, and sighing for a place which they were destined never more to possess." Our astute reader observed that Obama appears to have "a roaring case of discontented ghosthood." He certainly does.

If Hamilton's view had ultimately prevailed, would Obama even have wanted to continue serving as president? Unlikely, given his fondness for accumulating wealth and insatiable thirst for hanging out with celebrities. If he could run again, would he even win? He's become so boring to listen to it's hard to believe he ever did, until you consider who his opponents were—Hillary and John McCain (the embodiment of George W. Bush at the lowest point of his presidency) and Willard Mitt Romney. During the Democratic primary in 2020, Obama's legacy was attacked or swept under the rug. Notwithstanding his widely praised (by journalists) speech at the Democratic convention, he was a non-factor in 2024. Another meaningless celebrity endorsement. The ghost of politics past, slouching towards oblivion with the massive fortune he "didn't build," lecturing his few remaining acolytes about how to understand and connect with their "bitter" neighbors who "cling to guns and religion and antipathy" to "explain their frustrations."

Meanwhile, Obama still hasn't finished part two of his third memoir. (He's the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to require multiple volumes.) If it never gets published, would anyone care?

THE “REAL” INSURRECTION WAS AT THE BORDER!

 

 THE “REAL” INSURRECTION WAS AT THE BORDER!

Joe Sullivan, Layers of Truth

Sometime ago, MAYORS and GOVERNORS gleefully took on the role of notoriously disobeying the immigration laws of the United States. They decided that they would order their law enforcement officers not to cooperate with federal officials in their efforts to enforce federal law. They created “SANCTUARY CITIES” and “SANCTUARY STATES” to welcome and protect illegal invaders.

In doing so - they essentially told ALL constituents AND the illegal immigrants that there are some laws that can be broken and disregarded and without consequences. They also effectively told their constituents (citizens and voters) that THEY would have to pay to support these illegal immigrant invaders through state-funded public assistance programs (welfare). Their constituents were also expected to bear the burden of increasing crime rates and higher rents (supply and demand for rental housing). What’s important to understand is that the MAYORS and GOVERNORS who broke federal law placed the interests of the “invaders” above the interests of the “constituents” - which SHOULD have become grounds for RECALL FROM OFFICE - but the reality is that these movements seldom succeed… (disorganized - poorly led and underfunded)

THE BOTTOM LINE is that these MAYORS and GOVERNORS acted CRIMINALLY against the federal government and the RULE OF LAW… 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP) MUST NOW SUPPRESS A REAL REBELLION OF CRIMINAL GOVERNORS AND MAYORS WHO HAVE ALLOWED THE CANCER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TO FESTER AND FEED UPON THE BODY OF THIS COUNTRY.

SO, FROM NOW ON - WHENEVER YOU HEAR “THESE PEOPLE” FALSELY TALK ABOUT THE “J6 INSURRECTION” - TELL “THEM” THAT THEIR CRIMINAL MAYORS AND GOVERNORS HAVE BEEN THE “REAL INSURRECTIONISTS” AND THAT YOU SUPPORT THEIR ARREST AND PUNISHMENT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW!

One last thought - While a lot of us are feeling very pleased with the outcome of the Presidential election - the truth is that we are going to have to stand strong; hold the line and support PRESIDENT TRUMP and his appointees as they set about the reforms that are so badly needed…. Because this FIGHT must be MADE and it must be WON. A LARGE NUMBER OF TRAITORS NEED TO BE TRIED, CONVICTED AND PUNISHED - SO KEEP YOUR RESOLVE PATRIOTS!

'He's Not Kidding'

 

'He's Not Kidding': Trump Border Czar Tom Homan Prepares for Deportation War—With Blue City Mayors

Trump 2.0 eyes felony charges against anyone who obstructs ICE operations

Joseph Simonson, Free Beacon 

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to fulfill his pledge to carry out the mass illegal immigrant deportations he promised, all eyes are on the man tasked with implementing that mission: incoming "border czar" Thomas Homan, a more than 30-year law enforcement veteran who led Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the first Trump administration.

Standing in Homan's way are a handful of Democratic governors and mayors who have vowed to fight deportations of illegal immigrants in their jurisdictions. 

The most notable case is Denver mayor Mike Johnston (D.), who said last week in an interview that he is willing to put police officers at the county line to repel ICE agents, comparing Trump’s immigration plans to the massacre at Tiananmen Square. 

"More than us having DPD stationed at the county line to keep them out, you would have 50,000 Denverites there," Johnston told Denverite. "It's like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right? You’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants. And you do not want to mess with them."

While Johnston walked back those comments, he still said he's ready to go to jail for obstructing Trump's immigration actions he thinks are "wrong."

"Would I have taken it back if I could? Yes, I probably wouldn't have used that image," Johnston told 9News. "That's the image I hope we can avoid. What I was trying to say is this is an outcome I hope we can avoid in this country."

Johnston is one of many Democrats who have pledged to make it difficult for Trump and Homan to carry out mass deportations. Those close to Homan told the Washington Free Beacon that the Trump White House is prepared to use all tools at its disposal to force them to cooperate with—or at least not obstruct—its mass deportation agenda. 

Those tools include prosecutions under at least two provisions in the federal code. Federal law prohibits an individual from knowingly harboring any illegal aliens from law enforcement. 

It's also a felony to hinder any law enforcement investigation—a charge Homan is likely to call for should any local or state leader attempt to slow down deportations. Democrats, those close to Homan said, need to weigh whether any political stunts are worth the severe criminal penalties.

Homan, who did not respond to a request for comment, said as much on Monday. In an interview with Fox News, he said, "Me and the Denver mayor agree on one thing: He is willing to go to jail, and I am willing to put him there."

There is no doubt among those who worked with Homan that he intends to make good on his threat. One individual, who spoke anonymously but worked with Homan directly, said the next Trump administration is expected to work with the Justice Department and bring felony charges against those who actively block any ICE deportations.

"Homan talks about this almost every day," said one individual who spoke on the condition of anonymity but worked closely under Homan during the first administration. "He’s not kidding." 

Blue states and cities, by law, do not have to cooperate with federal law enforcement. A local police department is not legally required to assist ICE or any other federal agency with deportations.

But state and local officials cannot, for example, order police officers to block an ICE official from entering a building, as Johnston suggested earlier this month. Nor can they give false information to a federal law enforcement official.

Denver’s mayor is not the only Democrat who has said he will fight Trump’s planned deportations. Six Democratic prosecutors spoke with Politico earlier this month and said they plan a rash of lawsuits.

That may make some deportations more difficult. Homan is more than happy to face that problem, though those close to him believe that some police departments located in so-called sanctuary cities, municipalities with policies that block local law enforcement from cooperating with federal deportation orders, will relent.

Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, is expected to work closely with Homan and others to force Democratic compliance. One factor that attracted Bondi to Trump, an individual familiar with the choice told the Free Beacon, was her hardline position against drug traffickers as Florida’s attorney general.

The incoming Trump administration is itching for a fight with Democrats on deportations, said one individual familiar with their thinking. Polls taken after Trump’s decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris show that a majority of voters support a mass deportation program.

"Sanctuary policies are wildly unpopular, even among blue state voters, and these governors and mayors are siding with lawbreaking foreigners who have overstayed visas, ignored court orders, and committed horrific crimes," said Jon Feere, who served as a senior adviser to the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term. 

There are an estimated 12 million illegal aliens living in the United States, according to the Center for Migration Studies of New York, although some believe that figure is much higher. Few immigration experts believe all of those individuals can be deported within four years, regardless of whether Trump mobilizes the military.

Homan has said that he plans to prioritize illegal aliens with criminal convictions or those who have already received a deportation order from an immigration court. Such a strategy could, one senior Republican adviser said, shield Trump from any political fallout.

"The first hundred thousand or so will be the easiest," the individual said. "Trump can just line them up and say, ‘There’s a rapist, there’s a thief, there’s a murderer.' Democrats don’t want to oppose that."

Tearing the Leviathan Apart

Tearing the Leviathan Apart

Ned Ryun and Mark Corallo, American Greatness

The time has come to end the Administrative State once and for all. 

This failed experiment launched a century ago by Progressive Statists like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt is a deeply unconstitutional approach to government that is antithetical to the free, representative government founded by the American Republic. It is the polar opposite of what our founders envisioned with the unelected bureaucrats doing the governing of the country while not responsive to “We the People,” as the people didn’t elect them and, more importantly, don’t have any recourse to redress their grievances against the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the Administrative State via its statutes and regulations that benefit the State and its allies.

The good news is that President Trump has fully empowered Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is a massive step in the right direction. The fundamental reason for this is: Trump rejects the premise that the Administrative State is legitimate or that its unelected bureaucrats should be the final decision makers on anything, whether foreign or domestic policy. But Trump and DOGE should not settle for reducing government spending and the regulatory burden. 

Its goal should be to shatter the Administrative State into a million pieces. 

Everything that is wrong with our government and country today in many ways stems from the Administrative State: out of control bureaucracy, insane spending, and really the Swamp writ large. Understand that the foundation of the Swamp is the State. If you want to drain the Swamp you must break the State. Not only will it fix many of the ills facing America today, it will put the country back on the path of restoring the free American Republic and balancing out the three branches of government once more, which will lead to greater freedom and a Golden Age for this country.

But for this to happen, several fundamental, practical things must take place. First, on Day 1 of his second term, Trump must fire via his Reduction in Force authority 200,000 federal employees, preferably at the GS-12 and 13 levels. Of course the federal employee unions, which should cease to exist, will sue for a stay. That case will likely wind its way through the courts for 18 months or so (unless the Supreme Court fast tracks it). But once it reaches the SCOTUS, the fundamental question to be asked is: can the head of the Executive Branch, the duly elected President of the US, hire or fire whoever he pleases as per the Constitution? Or do the extra Constitutional statutes and regulations protecting the civil servants supersede the Constitution? With this SCOTUS, the odds are they will side with the originalism of the Constitution and give the President the right to hire and fire whoever he pleases inside the Executive Branch, where most of the Administrative State resides. 

Then Trump becomes the Demolition Man for at least the last two years of his Administration: firing large swaths of the federal government and shutting down departments and agencies. Most importantly in that process, removing those positions from the federal rolls and imploding the buildings he’s emptied and building a Freedom Park (or parks) over the top. Perhaps he even creates the monument he envisioned in July of 2020 and places the statues of our great American heroes over the remains of the Administrative State.

It’s imperative that the DOGE not be just be a cost cutting and regulatory slashing initiative, although that would be reason enough considering the massive bloat, waste, fraud and abuse in the system.  This is about reminding the career bureaucrats they answer to the people through their elected officials.  These bureaucrats have for too long usurped the power of the sovereign people and due to the government employee union contracts are not answerable to the elected officials from whom they derive their power.  They have become a de facto, independent, unaccountable, fourth branch of government that appears nowhere in the United States Constitution.  They are, in fact, the very top-down, authoritarian ruling elite our forefathers rejected in 1776 and replaced in the triumph of the American Revolution. 

Now as the entire process of answering the fundamental question of President Trump’s ability to hire and fire could take well over a year, what is to be done in the short term with the high level federal employees who plan on resisting Trump’s agenda? Trump should create the federal government equivalent of the New York City school system’s “rubber room.” On Day 1 of his Administration, the GS-15s and SES types, which by the way will likely include Biden political appointees who have “burrowed” into various departments and agencies as civil servants, will report to an empty government building dubbed the Department of Elimination, 30 minutes from Capitol Hill; far enough away to make it painful. They will report there promptly every day to sit at empty desks for 8 hours until SCOTUS addresses the fundamental question. Then, as the Administration proceeds, any high level bureaucrat caught resisting will be immediately reassigned to the Department of Elimination “rubber room.” They won’t be fired. They just get to sit there and not have the ability to resist inside the various departments and agencies.

It’s time to use the political power given to Trump by the American people to restore the Republic. In 1911 Woodrow Wilson, shortly before taking the White House and erecting the Administrative State, declared, “We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. We are as free as they were to make or unmake governments.” Trump should have that exact same mentality: we are not bound to adhere to the doctrines of the founders of the Administrative State. We are as free as they were to unmake governments and by God, we must do it: we must break the shackles of the bureaucratic statism holding us down — the future happiness and freedom of generations yet to come depend on it.

Break the State. Drain the Swamp. Restore the Republic. 

Nancy Pelosi is finished

 

Nancy Pelosi is finished

no one deserves more blame for Dems’ $1B electoral collapse

Under her ruthless leadership, her party lost the White House, the House, the Senate and the popular vote.

Miranda Devine, New York Post

It’s high time to shatter the myth of Nancy Pelosi as a master strategist. Nobody deserves more blame than the ridiculously self-titled "speaker emerita" for the Democrats’ $1 billion electoral collapse. 

Under her ruthless leadership, her party lost the White House, the House, the Senate and the popular vote. You can’t say that enough. 

Voters rejected the Dems from coast to coast, even in Pelosi’s deepest-blue home city of San Francisco, which saw a 7-point swing to Donald Trump.

She’s the only speaker in history to have lost control of the House twice. 

She’s finished

The empress emeritus has no clothes (perish the thought). 

Yet she still has the nerve to reward herself with another term, filing the papers last week to run for re-election in 2026, at the tender age of 86! She’ll be 88 at the end of Trump’s term.

When is too much enough?

Her saccharine-coated "Mean Girls" style of partisan viciousness and deviousness turns out to have done nothing for her party but postpone the inevitable reckoning between the radical left and common-sense moderates. Unfortunately for the Dems, most of the latter have taken a hike under Pelosi’s reign. 

Lying and infighting

If the GOP is Trump’s party, the Democratic Party is Pelosi’s — and what a viper’s nest of blame-shifting and rancor it has become, as they all blame each other for their humiliating defeat at the hands of the man they derided as a Nazi. Most Americans didn’t agree, and now the Democrats and their media handmaidens stand exposed as frauds and liars.

If Trump is such an "existential threat" to democracy, as Pelosi insisted to the bitter end, why did Joe Biden greet him with open arms and a beaming smile the other day? 

"Welcome back," said the president to the man Pelosi vowed would never again enter the White House.

"I decided a while ago that Donald Trump will never set foot in the White House again as president of the United States or in any other capacity," she told the Guardian before the election when she was trying to justify the coup against Biden, her former longtime friend who, she kept lying, was "sharp as a tack" until he fell apart on live TV.

With her party in ruins, pent-up frustration with Pelosi’s iron grip and flawed judgment is starting to find voice. Expect it to get louder as her efforts to offload blame on Biden leave a sour taste in the mouths of party loyalists. 

Since the humiliating defeat, Pelosi has been filmed publicly squabbling with Donna Brazile, has traded barbs with Bernie Sanders and has been ripped on "The View" and MSNBC. The Washington Post fact-checker even awarded her "Four Pinocchios" for lying that illegal migration was worse under Trump than Biden.

"The View" co-host Ana Navarro called Pelosi "nasty" for telling the New York Times that the Dems would have won if Biden had quit sooner. 

"She wants to make sure people know it wasn’t her, [that] she has no blame in this. … It’s really unseemly." 

Symone Sanders Townsend, MSNBC host and former Biden aide, blasted Pelosi for helping "orchestrate the very public demise of the president."

"Nancy Pelosi, everybody talks about how the speaker emerita, you know, she’s so strategic, she can count, she did all of that when she was the speaker in Congress, but my question is: Where is your calculator now?" 

Anonymous Dem lawmakers vented their spleen to Axios last week. 

"She needs to take a seat," one senior Democrat said of Pelosi. "Making scattershot comments [blaming others] is not just unhelpful, it’s damaging."

"[House Minority Leader] Hakeem [Jeffries] has been tremendously graceful and respectful of her, but I don’t think she is being respectful of him," said another Dem, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

'She's the enforcer'

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) wasn’t afraid to go on the record to express his frustration at Pelosi’s toxic legacy.

"She embraced this ‘She’s the Godmother, she’s the enforcer’ [image] and now she’s blaming Biden," he told Politico last week. "Well, you can’t have it both ways. You got what you wanted, and now you’re still blaming Biden.

"I think it’s really ironic that you have a woman at age 84 and she is still hanging on. Why not give a younger generation an opportunity to occupy that seat?"

Why not indeed. The only reason she’s hanging around Congress is the same reason she demanded her successor as speaker, Jeffries, bestow on her the "emerita" title: her ego. 

She believes she is the only person capable of crippling Trump’s second presidency like she did his first, and she is addicted to the adulation of a lapdog press overly impressed with the fact that she is female. They even praised her classless, divisive stunt of ripping up Trump’s State of the Union speech in 2020, standing right behind him at the podium for all the world to see.

In her two decades of amoral, divisive leadership, the Democrats have become the party of censorship, scolds, war and corporate interests. 

She devoted the twilight years of her career to her obsession with destroying Trump and his supporters, whom she slyly set up on Jan. 6, 2021, by refusing to give Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund the National Guard backup he begged for, and then turned the Jan. 6 committee into her personal star chamber.

Despot times

All her hatred, the impeachments and lawfare and jailing of Trump allies, served neither her party nor the country. Trump is back, better than ever, her party is in ruins and the country has been through hell for four years.

At the DNC convention that anointed Kamala Harris as their doomed presidential candidate, Dems were seen sporting buttons featuring Pelosi and the word "Godmother" with her face on a poster for the iconic Mafia movie "The Godfather." If that’s not an admission that she still runs the party like a Mafia don, nothing is.

It is true that she is a formidable leader in the Genghis Khan mold, as one GOP semi-admirer describes her. But what good were her dictatorial skills to the party she led off a cliff? 

She needs to ride off into the sunset, for everyone’s sake.

Miranda Devine is a writer, New York Post columnist and Fox News contributor.